NationStates Jolt Archive

SO....what do you think...i only want liberals and libertarians on this one. conservatives are a moot point. @ least they/we are consistant.

I'm the only one so far against seatbelt laws?

I'm the only one so far against seatbelt laws?

I am against seat belt laws, too!!!

I have a lot of libertarian views, but I'm for a lot more social services than they are.

i picked all but "AGAINST legalisation of hard drugs"

I am not against people owning guns, but I do think SOME people should be kept from having them.

Drugs, well I think that peopel shoud be able to do whatever they want to their own body. Regulate like with ciggs and alcohol. Great for the economy and the prison ssytem.

Seatbelts. Dont wear a seatbelt if you dont want to but I do think you shoudl be forced to put them on your kids.

It seems that so far, most of the "libs" responding are pretty consistent.

I have a lot of libertarian views, but I'm for a lot more social services than they are.
Right on sister! Power to the people! Kill whitey! Oh, wait, forget that last part.

I'm 100% against Gun Control, 100% against Seatbelt laws, and 100% for the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

Why? Well, for starters, it's your right to own a weapon. Be it a pistol or a bazooka --- Your choice, your funeral.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.

If you wanna do drugs, do them. It's your body, you know the consequences, and you're taking the risks.

Alright, when I looked there were 8 voters, 8 against gun control and 1 for. Who voted for both?

I'm 100% against Gun Control, 100% against Seatbelt laws, and 100% for the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

Why? Well, for starters, it's your right to own a weapon. Be it a pistol or a bazooka --- Your choice, your funeral.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.

If you wanna do drugs, do them. It's your body, you know the consequences, and you're taking the risks.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Damn right.

And don't ask me who voted for Gun Control, 'cause I sure as hell didn't!

I'm 100% against Gun Control, 100% against Seatbelt laws, and 100% for the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

Why? Well, for starters, it's your right to own a weapon. Be it a pistol or a bazooka --- Your choice, your funeral.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.

If you wanna do drugs, do them. It's your body, you know the consequences, and you're taking the risks.

Isn't it generally someone else's funeral? Or in the bazooka case, funerals?

Damn right.

And don't ask me who voted for Gun Control, 'cause I sure as hell didn't!

i voted for and against and gave my reasoning

I have a lot of libertarian views, but I'm for a lot more social services than they are.
Same here. My libertarian views are pretty much confined to social matters, I consider myself a strong social libertarian. But I also support welfare and other liberal positions on economics. On politicalcompass.org, I score around a -2 economically, -8 socially.

I disagree with other liberals in that I think gun control has gone too far nowadays. The failure of politicalcompass.org to include a single question on gun control is telling, because it conflicts with the general consensus that liberals are socially libertarian, and conservatives socially authoritarian.

Damn right.

And don't ask me who voted for Gun Control, 'cause I sure as hell didn't!
Click on the underlined number in the poll categories and it breaks down who voted for what.

I'm against anything regulating personal behavior unless it directly effects someone else. 'Victimless crimes" should not be crimes. People have the right to make their own decisions, including bad ones.

Isn't it generally someone else's funeral? Or in the bazooka case, funerals?
meh, they had it comming.

I'm against gun control laws, against seatbelt laws (unless they are on kids, that needs to be enforced, but i am against the legalisation of cocaine, heroin, etc, for the fact that they are extremely addictive and they can lead to homicidal tendancies. If they were regulated by the gov't. like,. as in rationed out. i would probably be okay with that.

Gun control - no opinion

Seatbelt laws - for

Legalising hard drugs - for

Isn't it generally someone else's funeral? Or in the bazooka case, funerals?


Well technically, yes, but I was talking about personal accidents. You know, you're getting your brand-new bazooka out of the closet, and you don't know it's loaded... We all know what happens then...

with the exception of child seatbelt/carseat laws, i oppose seatbelt laws. on gun control i cannot select a single yes/no option, because my opinion is a bit more complex; i believe in minimal gun control, far less than most gun control advocates would like, but more than Charleton Heston would be happy with.

I'm against anything regulating personal behavior unless it directly effects someone else. 'Victimless crimes" should not be crimes. People have the right to make their own decisions, including bad ones.


And people should have the right to commit suicide. You shouldn't get thrown in prison for ten years just because you failed at trying to kill yourself by slashing your ass with a razor blade.

what do you mean by gun control?

Needing a license, limiting the types you can have, no guns whatsoever, or just saying you can't have more than you can carry? ;)

crap. I thought it said legislation for hard drugs.

No way, they should be illegal because they fuck up your head

Well technically, yes, but I was talking about personal accidents. You know, you're getting your brand-new bazooka out of the closet, and you don't know it's loaded... We all know what happens then...
Bazookas are outdated anyway. A LAW is much more compact and easier to carry when you're out on the town, and a Javelin is more effective if someone breaks into your house with a tank.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.
I agree that people have the right to be as unsafe as they want - when they are the only ones affected. But unbuckled people in accidents have been known to kill more people than just themselves.

The failure of politicalcompass.org to include a single question on gun control is telling, because it conflicts with the general consensus that liberals are socially libertarian, and conservatives socially authoritarian.
Also due to the fact that political compass is made by people in Britain, where gun control is almost a non-issue.

Bazookas are outdated anyway. A LAW is much more compact and easier to carry when you're out on the town, and a Javelin is more effective if someone breaks into your house with a tank.


A Roman Pilum would be enough for me... But a LAW sounds tempting.

crap. I thought it said legislation for hard drugs.

No way, they should be illegal because they fuck up your head
so does caffiene. so does chocolate. so does alcohol.

I agree that people have the right to be as unsafe as they want - when they are the only ones affected. But unbuckled people in accidents have been known to kill more people than just themselves.


True, but then, kids should always wear seatbelts. Since they're minors, you know.

so does caffiene. so does chocolate. so does alcohol.


Dude... That chocolate I had last night... Oooohh maaaaaaan...

I'm 100% against Gun Control, 100% against Seatbelt laws, and 100% for the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

Why? Well, for starters, it's your right to own a weapon. Be it a pistol or a bazooka --- Your choice, your funeral.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.

If you wanna do drugs, do them. It's your body, you know the consequences, and you're taking the risks.
For the most part we agree, my libertarian brother.

I don't understand why some of the people who voted against gun control and for legalization of hard drugs voted for seatbelt laws. If you're for personal choice, why would you want the government telling you that you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure they save lives. I never go without mine. But people should be able to make up their own choices once they're an adult. Somebody please explain.

It's your right to be as unsafe as you want. You shouldn't have some government agency trying to "enforce" the use of seatbelts. That's absolutely stupid. The same goes for drugs.

and then when you have a crash, you can kill the other people in the car as well!

at least drugs dont harm anyone else

I don't understand why some of the people who voted against gun control and for legalization of hard drugs voted for seatbelt laws. If you're for personal choice, why would you want the government telling you that you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure they save lives. I never go without mine. But people should be able to make up their own choices once they're an adult. Somebody please explain.

that's one of the things i was trying to get at in this poll. why are you for some freed oms but not for others. Not trying to demonize anyone. just elaborate on why you think that way.

I don't understand why some of the people who voted against gun control and for legalization of hard drugs voted for seatbelt laws. If you're for personal choice, why would you want the government telling you that you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure they save lives. I never go without mine. But people should be able to make up their own choices once they're an adult. Somebody please explain.
See my post. I try to come to my political positions by practical reality as much as theories about "liberty". My main reason for wanting drugs to be legalised is to eliminate gangsterism, with personal liberty being an added bonus.

I agree that people have the right to be as unsafe as they want - when they are the only ones affected. But unbuckled people in accidents have been known to kill more people than just themselves.
Awhile back I started a thread about seatbelt laws, under my old name Chodolo, and was pretty surprised to see most people supporting seat belt laws, given the liberal/libertarian bent of this forum. But oh well. The arguments seemed to come down to unbuckled drivers not being able to control their car as well after being hit, and ending up hitting other cars. I might try to dig up that thread...


Also due to the fact that political compass is made by people in Britain, where gun control is almost a non-issue.
I heard they're moving towards regulating "assault knives". Hmm...

I agree that people have the right to be as unsafe as they want - when they are the only ones affected. But unbuckled people in accidents have been known to kill more people than just themselves.


I have the right to insist that everyone in my car buckle up. I also have the right to refuse to get in a car where people don't buckle up.

For the most part we agree, my libertarian brother.


Do you mean European or American Libertarianism? Because I'm nowhere close to being a Libertarian in the American sense.

and then when you have a crash, you can kill the other people in the car as well!

at least drugs dont harm anyone else

Drugs harm noone else?

What about drug related crime. Not the dealer killed another dealer crap, but the junkies that have to steal from other people to afford their habit.

See my post. I try to come to my political positions by practical reality as much as theories about "liberty". My main reason for wanting drugs to be legalised is to eliminate gangsterism, with personal liberty being an added bonus.
Yes, it would also open up a new market as no doubt companies would rush for production rights.- not being cynical just truthful.

I have the right to insist that everyone in my car buckle up. I also have the right to refuse to get in a car where people don't buckle up.


Exactly, but I'd still like to ride in a car with no seatbelts on a very bumpy road. That would be fun.

I don't understand why some of the people who voted against gun control and for legalization of hard drugs voted for seatbelt laws. If you're for personal choice, why would you want the government telling you that you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure they save lives. I never go without mine. But people should be able to make up their own choices once they're an adult. Somebody please explain.

i posted why on first page

Drugs harm noone else?

What about drug related crime. Not the dealer killed another dealer crap, but the junkies that have to steal from other people to afford their habit.
drugs themselves dont harm anyone else, it isnt a given that everyone who takes heroin turns into a pillaging junkie

And, usually these drug crimes come from the fact that drugs are, ahem... ILLEGAL.

If we had a "Hard Drug" Industry, then that problem would be solved, for the most part.

Drugs harm noone else?

What about drug related crime. Not the dealer killed another dealer crap, but the junkies that have to steal from other people to afford their habit.
Drug prices go down when they are legal. Look at alcohol. When it was illegal prices were high. There was a killing to be made in liquor, so people killed for it. After it became legal again prices dropped, and nowadays you don't hear about people killing for beer money.

Drug prices go down when they are legal. Look at alcohol. When it was illegal prices were high. There was a killing to be made in liquor, so people killed for it. After it became legal again prices dropped, and nowadays you don't hear about people killing for beer money.
you hear about people becoming alcoholics and getting drunk and beating their wife or husband, and them losing their job, resulting in the family living on the street.

Drugs harm noone else?

What about drug related crime. Not the dealer killed another dealer crap, but the junkies that have to steal from other people to afford their habit.


You've got to remember that if drugs were legal and sold at their real prices, as opposed to the artificially high black market prices, there'd be no need for almost any user to ever commit a crime to fund buying them.

So, in relation to the seat belt and drug laws, should we let people hurt themselves because that is what they want to do?

Even if they are wrong to say, walk in front of a car, should we [knowing that they shouldn't walk in front of a car] stand back and let them?

Libertarian,
Seat belt laws have to be more explicti in what you are for and against. I am for the compulsory use of seat belts for children, but against for adults. I voted for, as I do want some form of seat belt law.

Yes, if that's what they want to do, they should be able to commit suicide. They should be allowed to harm themselves.

Your body is no business of the government.

So, in relation to the seat belt and drug laws, should we let people hurt themselves because that is what they want to do?

Even if they are wrong to say, walk in front of a car, should we [knowing that they shouldn't walk in front of a car] stand back and let them?
its their body

but walking in front of a car doesnt just affect themselves, it affects the person in the car, so they shouldnt do that

if you dont want to wear seatbelts when youre on your own in a car then fine, but you should wear them when someone else is in it

you hear about people becoming alcoholics and getting drunk and beating their wife or husband, and them losing their job, resulting in the family living on the street.


so its obviously mental illness and not criminal intent and should be treated as such.

its their body

but walking in front of a car doesnt just affect themselves, it affects the person in the car, so they shouldnt do that

if you dont want to wear seatbelts when youre on your own in a car then fine, but you should wear them when someone else is in it


Okay, I see. They definately shouldn't be able to do that, as it would most likely harm the passengers.

so its obviously mental illness and not criminal intent and should be treated as such.

Which is how we get to the idea of treating sick people, as opposed to locking them up. :D

you hear about people becoming alcoholics and getting drunk and beating their wife or husband, and them losing their job, resulting in the family living on the street.
You hear about people fucking their lives up for other reasons too, like gambling, even internet "addiction". Shit happens. Offer treatment programs, and let people deal with the consequences of their actions.

so its obviously mental illness and not criminal intent and should be treated as such.

you are calling alchoholism an illness? I still will never understand how you can call that an illness. How can you shrug it off if somenone kills someone under the influence of alcohol. it is their fault that they drank it and got drunk, and that they became an alcoholic. did anyone pour it down their throats. and what about the number of alcohol related deaths. those that drank so much tha theu died of alcohol poisoning on the spot? tha tis plain stupidity. and in tha tinstance i am glad they are no longer tainting the gene pool.

I'm liberal but I seem to have the most moralistic ideals in here. I'm AGAINST seatbelt laws and legalization of drugs but am FOR gun control.

So, in relation to the seat belt and drug laws, should we let people hurt themselves because that is what they want to do?

Even if they are wrong to say, walk in front of a car, should we [knowing that they shouldn't walk in front of a car] stand back and let them?
Yep. Except in the last example. By walking in front of a car they endanger the life and property of another person.

its their body

but walking in front of a car doesnt just affect themselves, it affects the person in the car, so they shouldnt do that

if you dont want to wear seatbelts when youre on your own in a car then fine, but you should wear them when someone else is in it

Actually not wearing a seatbelt and dying because of it would effect those who had to clean you up and the other people in the medical system who had to wait in line behind you but that isn't really the point anyway. When you are a drug addict, does it not affect your family and friends?

You hear about people fucking their lives up for other reasons too, like gambling, even internet "addiction". Shit happens. Offer treatment programs, and let people deal with the consequences of their actions.

wait...that is a double standard. so if someone kills somone under the influence of a mind altering substance, we should jsut treat them? That';s not dealing with the consequences of their actions, you can;t have both.

you are calling alchoholism an illness? I still will never understand how you can call that an illness. How can you shrug it off if somenone kills someone under the influence of alcohol. it is their fault that they drank it and got drunk, and that they became an alcoholic. did anyone pour it down their throats. and what about the number of alcohol related deaths. those that drank so much tha theu died of alcohol poisoning on the spot? tha tis plain stupidity. and in tha tinstance i am glad they are no longer tainting the gene pool.
It's a mental illness. It doesn't excuse one from taking responsibility for his actions, only gives us a chance to rehabilitate that person if we can treat his illness.

Yes, if that's what they want to do, they should be able to commit suicide. They should be allowed to harm themselves.

Your body is no business of the government.
UNLESS you are hiding top-secret government papers for Al-Qaida in your ass, in which case you will be taken to Guantanamo and stripped naked while an Iraqi terrorist gives you an enema minus the water.

Yes, if that's what they want to do, they should be able to commit suicide. They should be allowed to harm themselves.

Your body is no business of the government.

I agree to that statement, for the most part. However, it could also be argued that the government is enlisted with the job of protecting us. Weather it be national defence from international forces, domestic law enforcement from petty criminals....why would this protection not extend to protecting us from ourselves?

Okay, I see. They definately shouldn't be able to do that, as it would most likely harm the passengers.
yup, in a crash you become a lethal weapon to other people in the car if youre not wearing a seatbelt

When you are a drug addict, does it not affect your family and friends?
not always, studies have shown that not everyone who takes hard drugs turns into the stereotypical addict

UNLESS you are hiding top-secret government papers for Al-Qaida in your ass, in which case you will be taken to Guantanamo and stripped naked while an Iraqi terrorist gives you an enema minus the water.


Well, I guess that would warrant such treatment, but...

No water? You know, that might hurt just a whole lot.

you are calling alchoholism an illness? I still will never understand how you can call that an illness. How can you shrug it off if somenone kills someone under the influence of alcohol. it is their fault that they drank it and got drunk, and that they became an alcoholic. did anyone pour it down their throats. and what about the number of alcohol related deaths. those that drank so much tha theu died of alcohol poisoning on the spot? tha tis plain stupidity. and in tha tinstance i am glad they are no longer tainting the gene pool.

if people are not able to moderate their drug/alcohol use then they obviously have a problem that they need help with. simple as that.

there are great people who have gotten over their addictions and have done great things. like helping others to get over their problems. not all people are complete losers just because they have an addiction.

Those that hurt others should definitely be held accountable for hurting others (I dont see where I shrugged off anything like that, please calm down and think rationally), but if they hurt themselves then they basically are paying the price for that by having been hurt.

not always, studies have shown that not everyone who takes hard drugs turns into the stereotypical addict
True. I've used plenty of hard drugs in the past. They include Cocaine, Heroin, MDMA, and LSD. I'm drug free now (unless you count alcohol)

I was just wondering...why were libertarians and libs grouped together?
*moves his foot around in the dirt*

I agree to that statement, for the most part. However, it could also be argued that the government is enlisted with the job of protecting us. Weather it be national defence from international forces, domestic law enforcement from petty criminals....why would this protection not extend to protecting us from ourselves?

Hmm....meh....i would like them to take the obvious labeles off everything, as a form of natural selection. we will rid the world off al idiots and their spawn, and those with no common sence. I think that if you are stupid enough to shove a supposotory up your nose, and suffocate, you deserve to die. if you are a normal, functioning adult, and if you actually have the capacity to read, you should know that drinking blech will burn your insides out. But that's me. i think that the only poeple protecting us from ourselves is us.

Oops, meant to put FOR legalisation of hard drugs... thought it said LEGISLATION.

not always, studies have shown that not everyone who takes hard drugs turns into the stereotypical addict

I know not everyone does but more than enough do to make it a significant problem.

not always, studies have shown that not everyone who takes hard drugs turns into the stereotypical addict
i'm living proof of that. i've used pot, alcohol, coke, LSD, mushrooms, MDMA, 2CT-7, GHB, and probably some other stuff i am forgetting. i graduated first in my high school class, tripple majored in college, and am now studying for my PhD.

i'm not saying drugs are responsible for my success, just that they haven't stopped me either. winners sometimes do use drugs. :)

(I dont see where I shrugged off anythign like that, please calm down and think rationally)
the thing is, i was thinking rationally, someone said that they should be treated but then they said that they should pay the consequences. i dont think that killing your family is the only consequence you should have for you actions. i think 10-20 would do it. and some rehabilitation.

the thing is, i was thinking rationally, someone said that they should be treated but then they said that they should pay the consequences. i dont think that killing your family is the only consequence you should have for you actions. i think 10-20 would do it. and some rehabilitation.


agreed, people should be held accountable for hurting others. I am with you there. but they shoudl not be criminalized for using substances when it hurts noone else.

Same here. My libertarian views are pretty much confined to social matters, I consider myself a strong social libertarian. But I also support welfare and other liberal positions on economics. On politicalcompass.org, I score around a -2 economically, -8 socially.

I disagree with other liberals in that I think gun control has gone too far nowadays. The failure of politicalcompass.org to include a single question on gun control is telling, because it conflicts with the general consensus that liberals are socially libertarian, and conservatives socially authoritarian.
Are you sure that it didnt' get included because gun control isn't as big an issue in other countries as in the u.s.?

And hey, I'm all for guns for liscenced hunters and policemen... but really, what the hell do you need one for in the city other than killing/harming others?

As for seatbelts, someoen else could conceivably get injured when someone is ejected from a vehicle during a collision, so those should be required, or else have some other way to keep passengars inside a vehicle during an accident.

Drugs though, legalize them for adults..

agreed, people should be held accountable for hurting others. I am with you there. but they shoudl not be criminalized for using substances when it hurts noone else.


agreed, but if they cross the line, the punishment should be swift and severe.

Hmm....meh....i would like them to take the obvious labeles off everything, as a form of natural selection. we will rid the world off al idiots and their spawn, and those with no common sence. I think that if you are stupid enough to shove a supposotory up your nose, and suffocate, you deserve to die. if you are a normal, functioning adult, and if you actually have the capacity to read, you should know that drinking blech will burn your insides out. But that's me. i think that the only poeple protecting us from ourselves is us.

That's a little cold-hearted isn't it? We all show signs of stupidity at various points in our lives, yes to varying degrees and such but where do we draw the line?

As for seatbelts, someoen else could conceivably get injured when someone is ejected from a vehicle during a collision, so those should be required, or else have some other way to keep passengars inside a vehicle during an accident.


OOOO..i have an idea, spotweld your butt to the seat. that might work.

agreed, but if they cross the line, the punishment should be swift and severe. :fluffle:

so then you agree? people should be allowed to use all the drugs they want as long as they hurt noone but htemselves by dong it?

That's a little cold-hearted isn't it? We all show signs of stupidity at various points in our lives, yes to varying degrees and such but where do we draw the line?

No....i think it is common sense that a rational minded adult should know that it may hurt a bit if you pour cleaning solution into your eyes.

:fluffle:

so then you agree? people should be allowed to use all the drugs they want as long as they hurt noone but htemselves by dong it?

yes...but that is unlikely...they would have to be in "clean rooms" where thy can't interact with people, just in case there was an adverse effect. and they should be stricly monitered.

EDIT: the drugs should be strictly moniteered.

No....i think it is common sense that a rational minded adult should know that it may hurt a bit if you pour cleaning solution into your eyes.

What about someone who is mentally challenged? They should have their eyes burnt out becuase they weren't fortunate enough to be born with the same mental capacity as you or me?

I agree to that statement, for the most part. However, it could also be argued that the government is enlisted with the job of protecting us. Weather it be national defence from international forces, domestic law enforcement from petty criminals....why would this protection not extend to protecting us from ourselves?
Because I'm a grown up. (legally, anyway) Do you want the governmant to tell you what you can eat? Telling you not to go skiing? How about they tell you your significant other is bad for you and you have to quit seeing them?

yes...but that is unlikely...they would have to be in "clean rooms" where thy can't interact with people, just in case there was an adverse effect. and they should be stricly monitered.

EDIT: the drugs should be strictly moniteered.


not unlikely, I have done all the drugs I have ever cared to do and have never hurt a soul. Except maybe feelings by being stupid while drinking alcohol, but noone has teh freedom of not getting their feelings hurt. I also have not become addicted to anything as I have stopped doind drugs many times for long periods to keep myself in check.

treat all drugs like alcohol I say.

I might also add that as a drug user I have had many many friends across the US (as I have traveled alot) who have also used drugs and never hurt another person while doing so.

People can be unstable and hurt others while sober too. Drugs should not be be held liable for peoples actions.

Because I'm a grown up. (legally, anyway) Do you want the governmant to tell you what you can eat? Telling you not to go skiing? How about they tell you your significant other is bad for you and you have to quit seeing them?

Ofcourse not. If they tell me that I can't jump off a cliff though, I wouldn't be arguing with the legislation. There is a difference between everyday acts and things that pose an iminent threat to your safety [or the safety of others but that's a given][also if you've seen me ski, I probably should be banned :)] If your significant other was going to kill themselves, would you want to persuade them otherwise?

Also, just because we are adults doesn't mean we always know what is best for ourselves. For example, we cannot drive when we are drunk. Even though at the time we believe it's OK, when in a different state of mind we can understand why it is the wrong thing to do.

Try to persuade them, yes. Legislate it, no.

Try to persuade them, yes. Legislate it, no.

Well legislation is about the governments best form of persuasion. I'm talking about drugs and seat belts here, obviously when people attempt to commit suicide they aren't really worried about going to prison for it. I can see where you are coming from though. I understand the importance of personal freedom and if someone taking drugs only affected themselves then I would be fine with that. However, far too often drug abuse affects other people as well. If it could be ensured that drug abusers would not affect anyone else then I would fully support it's legalisation. However, legalising it would increase both the availability and exposure of the drugs and the amount of users would increase, unfortunatly many of these new users [and the users who are using the drugs more commonly because of the lower prices] would have a negative affect on those around them and that is where my problem with legalisation lies.

Me = for all three

i'm not saying drugs are responsible for my success, just that they haven't stopped me either. winners sometimes do use drugs. :)


And only users lose drugs. :D

hehe

And only users lose drugs. :D

hehe

Bad..... Hehe.

Put that after a bad arcade game!

Yes, it would also open up a new market as no doubt companies would rush for production rights.- not being cynical just truthful.
Yes, that's the reason I forgot to mention - it would be a boost to the economy.

I heard they're moving towards regulating "assault knives". Hmm...
Yes, guns are completely banned there and now 25% of 16 year old boys carry around knives, but the Blair government is looking at stamping this out.

you hear about people becoming alcoholics and getting drunk and beating their wife or husband, and them losing their job, resulting in the family living on the street.
I'm not saying that legalising drugs would have no negative consequences. But if I had to choose between large-scale gangsterism, astronomical murder and crime rates, and all the other crap that we have now, I'll take a few dysfunctional junkies over that.

Besides, I think that hard drugs should be legal but heavily regulated by the government. I'm talking content and price controls, perhaps with a government monopoly on selling hard drugs. I'm not so libertarian as to want to make it so that you can buy a few ounces of heroin as easily as a can of beer.

I'm for legalising some drugs (i.e. Marijuana)

But CRACK?! Are you crazy?!

I'm for legalising some drugs (i.e. Marijuana)

But CRACK?! Are you crazy?!


What about Heroin? Mary Jane is one thing. Nobody's ever died from that. Heroin is some bad sauce. There's the "victimless crime" argument. I'm sorry, but as soon as a mother or father shoots up, that's endangerment, and shows bad parenting. There's a victim too. If Mom or Dad can be in full mental control while on Heroin, they haven't taken enough. Part of drugs and the allure thereof is to be out of your mind. Nobody who is responsible for someone else at a given point in time should be allowed to screw themselves up that mightily.

Anyhow, it's totally possible for someone to overdose on Heroin. How victimless is the crime when Junior's mom misinterprets her dose and ends up pushing daisies? How victimless is the crime if Grandpa gets thrown out of the nursing home because Jimmy spent the all of the money on smack?

Let's not even mention the strain on the welfare system when the government finally has to be accountable for what they have legalised.

I'm not saying that the amount of Heroin users would increase. It probably wouldn't. I am saying that the 'victimless crime' argument is kind of BS.

Guns are one thing (I voted for some regulation by the way), Seatbelts are another, but when it comes to stuff like Heroin, the foot must be put down.

What about Heroin? Mary Jane is one thing. Nobody's ever died from that. Heroin is some bad sauce. There's the "victimless crime" argument. I'm sorry, but as soon as a mother or father shoots up, that's endangerment, and shows bad parenting. There's a victim too. If Mom or Dad can be in full mental control while on Heroin, they haven't taken enough. Part of drugs and the allure thereof is to be out of your mind. Nobody who is responsible for someone else at a given point in time should be allowed to screw themselves up that mightily.

Anyhow, it's totally possible for someone to overdose on Heroin. How victimless is the crime when Junior's mom misinterprets her dose and ends up pushing daisies? How victimless is the crime if Grandpa gets thrown out of the nursing home because Jimmy spent the all of the money on smack?

Let's not even mention the strain on the welfare system when the government finally has to be accountable for what they have legalised.

I'm not saying that the amount of Heroin users would increase. It probably wouldn't. I am saying that the 'victimless crime' argument is kind of BS.

Guns are one thing (I voted for some regulation by the way), Seatbelts are another, but when it comes to stuff like Heroin, the foot must be put down.


replace the word heroin with alcohol. same thing.

criminalizing behavior rather than substances is where it should be. if someone else gets hurt because of your actions then yes you shoudl be punished and if it is because you have a problem with addiction then you shoudl also be helped to overcome that addiction.
if youa re unwilling to try to rehabilitate yoruself then lets say you get a longer sentence.

criminalizing a substance creates a black market that is IMPOSSIBLE to control, this gives rise to gang funding and gang violence. legalizing them takes away the profit from the gangs and helps the economy.